THINGS.' A large extent of power when the Apostles expected an Universal obedience. 'IN ALL THINGS.' And so so the stile of the Church runs in descension; so Ignatius, ye must do NOTHING without your BISHOP', to contradict him in NOTHING.' The expression is frequent in him, 'to comprehend all things in his judgment or cognizance, so the Council of Antioch (Can. 9).

But these Universal expressions must be understood secundum Materiam subjectam, so St. Ignatius expresses himself. Ye must without your Bishop do nothing; nothing of things pertaining to the Church. So also the Council of Antioch, The things of the Church are committed to the Bishop to whom all the people is intrusted. They are Ecclesiastical persons, it is an Ecclesiastical power they are endowed with, it is for a spiritual end, viz. the regiment of the Church and the good of souls, and therefore only those things which are in this order are of Episcopal cognizance. And what are those things?

1...... Whatsoever.... the secular tribunal did take cognizance of before it was Christian, the same it takes notice of after it is Christened. And these are all actions Civil, all publick violations of Justice, all breach of Municipal laws. These the Church hath nothing to do with...

in

I

2. The Bishop's All comes in after this; And he is judge of all those causes which Christianity hath brought upon a new stock, by its new distinctive Principles say, by its new Principles; for there where it extends justice, and pursues the laws of nature, there the secular

ribunal is also extended if it be Christian; The Bishop gets nothing of that: But those things which Christianity (as it prescinds from the interest of the republick) hath introduc'd, all them, and all the causes emergent fromthem the Bishop is Judge of. Such are causes of Fath, Ministration of Sacraments, and Sacramentals, SUBORDINATION OF INFERIOUR CLERGIE TO THEIR SUPERIOUR, censures, irregularities, Orders hierarchical, rites and ceremonies, liturgies, and publick forms of prayer (as is famous in the Ancient story of Ignatius, teaching his Church the first use of Antiphonas and Doxologies, and thence was derived to all Churches of Christendom) and all such things as are in immediate dependance of these, as dispensation of Church-Vessels, and Ornaments, and Goods, receiving and disposing the Patrimony of the Church, and whatsoever is of the same consideration, according to the 41 Canon of the Apostles. Præcipimus ut in potestate sud Episcopus Ecclesiæ res habeat. Let the Bishop have the disposing the gools of the Church'; adding this reason. 'Si enim animae hominum pretioso illi sint creditæ, multo mag's eum oportet curam pecuniarum gerere He that is intrusted with our precious souls, may much more be intrusted with the offertories of faithful people. ' »

6

JER. TAYLOR, Episcopacy Asserted, sect. 36.

Ed. Folio, Lond. 1674, p. 120.

12. That most precise and closely argumentative of all reasoners, Leslie, writes,

« Our Kings claim no other ecclesiastical anthority than was granted by God to the Kings in Holy Scripture:

and what that was we have seen before, to have nothing in it but mere civil power; though it might be exercised over ecclesiastical persons (who are subject, as all others, as Christ Himself was, to the civil powers in all civil things,) and in ecclesiastical causes too, to punish with temporal pains, as well blasphemers, idolaters, and heretics, as thieves, robbers, &c; as well the transgressors against the first as second table. Thus the godly Kings in Holy Scripture did. Thus they were empowered by God; and this, and no more is attributed to our Kings. as it is fully expressed in our 37.th Article, viz. « That only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God Himself; that is, to rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal. and to restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers. » These are the words of the Article.

And hence it was urged, that the precedents drawn from any extraordinary acts of Moses, David, or Solomon are hereby excluded; because it is said such prerogative and such only, as was always given, and to all godly Princes; and that is explained, viz. to restrain with the civil sword.'

That therefore by this, all ecclesiastical power whatsoever is utterly disowned and disclaimed, though the civil power, as said before, may be exercised upon ecclesiastical persons and in ecclesiastical causes.

That this was made in explanation of the Oath of Supremacy, and therefore does oblige us to understand those

words in that Oath where the King is said to be Supreme Governor, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, to extend only to civil government and the power of the civil sword,

d

That this explanation was made necessarily; for, as Bishop Burnet tells us (Hist. Reform. part ii. p. 386) the Bishops opposed the Queen's supremacy, as set forth in that Oath; and many others were offended at it. And the same Bishop, in his Travels from Zurich, let. 1. p. 52, of the Dutch Edition at Rotterdam, 1686, quotes a letter of Bishop Jewel's to Bullinger, dated the 22 of May 1559; wherein he writes, that the Queen refused to be called Head of the Church', and adds, that the title could not be justly given to any mortal.' Therefore Queen Elizabeth laid aside the title of Head of the Church, and instead thereof the word Governor was put into the Oath, as it stands to this day; the King being now styled therein only Supreme Governor, which is a more secular word than Head, (though it may mean the same thing), and, as here explained, means only Supreme Civil Governor.

That this Article mentions Queen Elizabeth's Injunctions, which explain and limit the Regal Supremacy, as it has done; and desires that none should take the Oath in any other sense.

That Primate Ussher gave the same explanation of it, in a speech at the Council-table in Dublin, upon occasion of some Magistrates there who refused the said Oath; and King James I. sent him a letter of thanks and approbation of his speech; both which are in print.

And that none of our succeeding Kings or Parliaments have given any other explanation of it, or required that it should be taken in any other sense; but all along refer to these.

That the Thirtynine Articles are incorporated into our Laws, and required to be subscribed by Act of Parliament.

That therefore, if any think the former Acts of Parliament, 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19; the 37 Hen. VIII. c. 17, &c; and the commissions for Bishopricks taken out by Cranmer, Bonner, &c. cannot be reconciled by the means before mentioned, with that exposition in the Thirtyseventh Article, &c. aud with several practices formerly, or at this day; yet this they must grant, that not only former customs, but Acts of Parliament, are superseded and annulled by later Acts of Parliament: and therefore if those former Acts cannot be so construed as to agree with the latter, the latter must take place; and so on all hands it is plain, that as our Laws stand at present, the Church is left wholly independent on the State as to her purely spiritual power and authority, quod erat demonstrandum. And if there is or has been any practices contrary to these laws, yet that annuls not the laws. >>

13.

LESLIE'S Case of the Regale and of the Pontificate stated, publ d 1702; Ed. Lond. 1838, pp 41

Bishop Burnet, in the 3. flections &c.', intituled 'Some general Regal Supremacy, that was raised so mation', observes,

d

43.